{
  "id": 11273280,
  "name": "STATE v. ED. BROWN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "867",
  "last_page": "868",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 867"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.425596591468156e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4436044340809059
    },
    "sha256": "3976ae4f1f82c85bfe2d4deead2333c7b9f63e302a3fb959a323e413e7c1043d",
    "simhash": "1:d2ca81755cd57ffb",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ED. BROWN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe motion was properly overruled.\n1. The act of the General Assembly of 4907 (chapter 573) creating a recorder\u2019s court for the city of Winston limits the jurisdiction of tbat court to offenses committed within the corporate limits of said city, and there is nothing appearing upbn the face of tbis record showing tbat the offense, was committed within those limits.\n2. Larceny from tbe person, regardless of tbe value of tbe property, is neither a petty misdemeanor nor a felony, tbe punishment for which cannot exceed one year, under section 8506 of tbe Revisal.\nThe punishment for such offense, under sections 3500 and 3506, may be as much as ten years in tbe State\u2019s Prison. Of tbis offense tbe Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General for tbe State.",
      "J. S. Grogan for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ED. BROWN et al.\n(Filed 21 May, 1909.)\n1. Police Justice \u2014 Jurisdiction\u2014City Limits \u2014 Evidence\u2014Judgment\u2014 Motion in Arrest.\nWhen a police justice has jurisdiction of offenses only when committed within the corporate limits of a city, a motion in arrest of judgment will be denied when it does not appear that the offense was committed in the limits prescribed.\n2. Larceny from Person \u2014 Punishment\u2014Jurisdiction\u2014Superior Court.\nLarceny from the person, regardless of the value of the property, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court. (Revisal, sec. 3506.)\nIndxctmeNt tried before Webb, J., at February .Term, 1909, of Forsyth', for larceny from tbe person of a pocketbook of tbe value of $1.\nTbe defendants were convicted, and moved in arrest of judgment, upon tbe ground tbat tbe recorder\u2019s court of Winston bad exclusive original jurisdiction of tbe offense charged in tbe bill. Motion overruled. Defendants appealed. Tbis constitutes tbe only assignment of error.\nAttorney-General for tbe State.\nJ. S. Grogan for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0867-01",
  "first_page_order": 911,
  "last_page_order": 912
}